Author Topic: Politics  (Read 511270 times)

zarodinu

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4538
  • What we've got here is failure to communicate
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #140 on: June 08, 2008, 04:25:16 AM »
If there was any racism this election it has helped Obama, not harmed him.  Obama won a whole bunch of all white states, and each time it showed that factors such as age and level of education had a stronger effect on how white voters vote, than the race of the candidate.  On the other hand, black voters went overwhelmingly to Obama, I am talking 90% or more.  Obama and Hillary are virtually identical in terms of political outlook, so I cant think of any reason for a 90-10 split other than people voting for the guy that looks like them.

In Obama's defence he ran a clean campaign, and didnt use racial politics the way the Clintons did.  But they were desperate and he was not, so he had little reason to go for the low blows.  Also, I again will say that short of some horrible skeleton in Obama's closet, he will be the next president of the US.  Politics is not just a bunch of individuals making decision, its broad social movements that have enormous momentum, right now the wind is blowing in favor of the Democrats.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 04:27:54 AM by zarodinu »
I’ve lied to men who wear belts. I’ve lied to men who wear suspenders. But I’d never be so stupid as to lie to a man who wears both a belt and suspenders.

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #141 on: June 08, 2008, 11:56:33 AM »
Hmm, there seems to be a fair amount of tension between your various statements.  Mainly, in the first paragraph that racism helped Obama (and i suspect you don't mean that black voting for black is racist, just race conscious, or even, you seem to imply, merely a matter of reflectivity) but in the second paragraph you claim that Obama didn't use racial politics, the Clintons did.  This could be a matter of the lack of need for the Obama camp to invoke race, thus his campaign did not "use race", and I get that.  Next, your noting the "looks like me" approach to voting against the power of "social movements", I'm not sure how to sort out that discrepancy.  I think it was around the NH primary, where Clinton did much better than polling suggested she would, that the hypothesis came out that folks would admit to pollers they had no problem voting for a black candidate, but when it came to being alone in the booth, they voted their race-informed ways.

I'm also not sure what to make of Obama and Clinton as being virtually identical in terms of political outlook.  "Political outlook" taken broadly, it seems to me Obama was much more positive and putting on appearances of the experienced outsider.  I don't think the same could be said of the way Clinton came off.  Regarding their policy positions, I don't think I paid enough attention to pick up any differences, but my impression was they didn't address policy specifics much at all, so there is some identicalism there. 

And I unfortunately don't have the same sense of either the wind blowing in favor of democrats or of Obama's non-whiteness as a non-issue.  Here was a nice catch of things to come that appeared on the Feministe blog, a quote from Chris Matthews:

Quote
OK. Let me ask you about how he — how’s he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?

Granted, this is the idiot Matthews (mainly reflected here in contrasting "regular people" to "the African-American community", also the implication that AA people don't have college or advanced degrees), but this is a vibe that is going around already, that African Americans are unintelligent/uneducated (very different things, but currently (and usually) conflated) and will thus follow reflexively.  Second, that Obama's other base of support is the liberal academy whose members are so disconnected from reality and brainwashed by a culture of political correctness that to measure meaningful support from them - those elitists - is out of touch (see also the recent Weekly Standard piece on this argument for a disconnection of place pinned to Obama).   That is one of the arguments circulating and I fear this kind of rhetoric will pick up traction.  Add to that, the ridiculous tactic of McCain's campaign that he is actually a maverick - please, stop calling this dud a maverick!  I was listening to All Things Considered the other day and host-dude mentions "the maverick Senator McCain" - are you flipping serious?!!  Would they ever introduce him as "the elderly Senator McCain"?  Of course not (unless it polled well) - how the hell has this picked up traction to the point that the "liberal" NPR regurgitates this nonsense?  I have a serious fear that we who hope for Obama over McCain are up to having our spirits dashed (not to mention the ignored, unresolved, and expanded issue of electronic voting, which was controlled and pushed (and is owned) by conservative interests). 

I'd be happy to get a boost of hopefulness, so let me in on some of what you are thinking :)
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 11:59:44 AM by skjerva »
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams. 
                        - Iris Barry from "The Public's Pleasure" (1926)

ˇKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26774
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #142 on: June 08, 2008, 12:56:52 PM »
Our long national nightmare is over.

Well ... one of them.

pixote

Yah, this particular quote should be saved for January 20, 2009 and I have no doubt that it will be bandied about liberally (haha) on that day.

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #143 on: June 21, 2008, 11:21:59 AM »
From both Obama's people and MoveOn, I have received proud proclamations of the Obama decision to deny public financing, this while gesturing toward the corruption of non-public financed elections - this is driving me nuts.  While I understand the leverage that Obama has from his billion dollar juggernaut, it hardly seems the model of campaign financing he apparently believes in.  While he does critique lobbyists and special interest PACs, and he says he supports the public financing of elections, he brazenly claims that "you [Obama supporters] have already changed the way campaigns are funded"...wha??!  Because they are privately financing his campaign something has changed?  Master of Deception!

I would love to hear Obama speak to the issue of reclaiming PUBLIC AIRWAVES for EQUAL TIME for ALL CANDIDATES, but I can't imagine it will happen.

I HOPE that if he is elected he is planning to speak openly about changes that must be made on issues he apparently cares about but is unable (or unwilling?) to currently address.

But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams. 
                        - Iris Barry from "The Public's Pleasure" (1926)

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16585
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #144 on: June 21, 2008, 01:59:45 PM »
You don't see the difference between the unprecedented number of individual small donors to Obama's campaign and a campaign funded by lobbyists and PACs?
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #145 on: June 21, 2008, 05:17:54 PM »
While he does critique lobbyists and special interest PACs, and he says he supports the public financing of elections, he brazenly claims that "you [Obama supporters] have already changed the way campaigns are funded"...wha??!  Because they are privately financing his campaign something has changed?  Master of Deception!
A different take:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/bring-it-on/

pixote
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

ˇKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26774
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #146 on: June 23, 2008, 12:02:35 AM »
ahh, the New York Times.  Back to thinking this excerpt: "reformers (and the McCain camp)" refers to 2 different things.

chesterfilms

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 6370
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #147 on: July 23, 2008, 11:25:32 AM »


What? What are you talking about? It's girls and spaghetti. We love girls and spaghetti.

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16585
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #148 on: July 23, 2008, 02:15:48 PM »
Nice.
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #149 on: July 23, 2008, 02:51:32 PM »
First of all. B. Hussein is the greatest name for Obama ever. Second, I can't believe somebody accused skjerva of being offensive. What a strange twist. Third, B. Hussein is the man! I wish I was American just so I could vote for him.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

 

love